- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump announces a temporary 10% cap on credit card interest rates
Posted on 9/19/24 at 9:11 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/19/24 at 9:11 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Lots of people who can't earn OT work more than people who get OT.
Define “lots”
Posted on 9/19/24 at 9:12 am to Sidicous
quote:
No POTUS has the constitutional authority to do this. So far the totality of the Congress has not shown any interest in attempting to nationalize all banking and thus lacks any Constitutional authority also.
Perhaps my memory is off, but it seems to me back in the Obama years these powers were conferred to the Executive by Congress, particularly by way of the CFPB. That entity has a lot of power and it can be used to go HAM on some stuff.
Posted on 9/19/24 at 9:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
a. You are crawfishing. You said "hardest"
Hard work is subjective, there's no where for you to make a point here.
quote:
b. Lots of people who can't earn OT work more than people who get OT. Again, you're relying on more dishonest framing ("people who work 40 hours or less")
They can't pick up a shift at a different job? Why not?
quote:
I'm discussing comparing tax rates. You're discussing comparing hours worked. It's non-responsive to the actual discussion at hand.
I don't find your distinction necessarily relevant, though.
Posted on 9/19/24 at 9:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If that stepping is selective, yes.
Like selectively choosing to tax people more on higher earnings?
Posted on 9/19/24 at 9:15 am to Purple Spoon
quote:
The no income tax on overtime is a good idea.
I disagree. If you’re a business owner, you’re going to cut staff as workers will be extremely motivated to put in overtime. Time and a half is still cheaper than the costs to employ extra employees.
Posted on 9/19/24 at 9:18 am to Azkiger
quote:
Hard work is subjective, there's no where for you to make a point here.
No where to make a point when you keep changing your commentary.
quote:
They can't pick up a shift at a different job? Why not?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
How would salary workers, working more than 40 hours in their salaried jobs, make overtime by "picking up a shift" ? They'd have to work 40 more hours at that job to become eligible for OT.
quote:
I don't find your distinction necessarily relevant, though.
Well considering your argument has to keep shifting b/c I've blown up your leftism, I understand why you'd say that.
Do you believe that government treating populations differently reflects leftism or conservatism?
Posted on 9/19/24 at 9:18 am to Azkiger
quote:
Like selectively choosing to tax people more on higher earnings?
Yes. Obviously.
Posted on 9/19/24 at 9:20 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
I dont mind the temporary freeze until Trump gets inflation under control. If its permanent, then no, i dont agree with the policy
Posted on 9/19/24 at 9:22 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
I don’t care for this at all. The slippery slope is real. We don’t need to be democrats and if he is trying to be one with all of the exceptions he has proposed what does that say about the trajectory of the country?
Posted on 9/19/24 at 9:29 am to AUauditor
quote:
As long as we are taxed on income as a practice
Found the problem.
Posted on 9/19/24 at 9:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No where to make a point when you keep changing your commentary.
I switched from more to harder for that same reason. Harder (more difficult) is subjective. After sensing something like that could distract someone like you I switched to something more objective.
quote:
How would salary workers, working more than 40 hours in their salaried jobs, make overtime by "picking up a shift" ?
They'd have to find a better employer/employee agreement in order to take advantage of this benefit. When you agree to accept a salary regardless of hours worked you've put yourself in a pickle.
quote:
Well considering your argument has to keep shifting b/c I've blown up your leftism, I understand why you'd say that.
You just got done labeling equality of opportunity as equity, you should probably stop with the attempts to label my stance as leftist.
quote:
Do you believe that government treating populations differently reflects leftism or conservatism?
Depends. If the differences arise because of personal choice then such a thing could very well be within conservatism.
This post was edited on 9/19/24 at 9:33 am
Posted on 9/19/24 at 9:30 am to Gifman
quote:
Don't support this at all. By the way, this is why I laugh when leftists call Trump "far right wing."
Totes.
Posted on 9/19/24 at 9:33 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
The Federal Gov already has caps in place.
Posted on 9/19/24 at 9:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Yes. Obviously.
So why not use that same legality to ease the tax burdens of some Americans?
Posted on 9/19/24 at 9:37 am to Azkiger
quote:
I switched from more to harder for that same reason. Harder (more difficult) is subjective. After sensing something like that could distract someone like you I switched to something more objective.
And both are wrong
quote:
They'd have to find a better employer/employee agreement in order to take advantage of this benefit.
So people who both work and make more, need a "better" agreement?
Explain that logic.
quote:
When you agree to accept a salary regardless of hours worked you've put yourself in a pickle.
And that "pickle" is often +EV compared to hourly labor.
quote:
You just got done labeling equality of opportunity as equity
Not once have you argued equality of opportunity.
That would be a standard taxation system for all people.
You are arguing for non-equality via government action, so that only one population gets beneficial treatment at the expense of all others.
quote:
Depends.
quote:
If the differences arise because of personal choice then such a thing could very well be within conservatism.
Holy shite.
Explain this for the class as a universal principle.
You're going to end up arguing that government should benefit certain decision making, which is literally leftism/socialism.
Posted on 9/19/24 at 9:37 am to POTUS2024
quote:
Perhaps my memory is off, but it seems to me back in the Obama years these powers were conferred to the Executive by Congress, particularly by way of the CFPB. That entity has a lot of power and it can be used to go HAM on some stuff.
The CFPB has limited power and in Trump’s 1st term he attempted to dissolve it by completely tying its hands but the courts blocked it. Squaw Warrior Warren is the driving force behind the inception of the agency and still runs it.
But literally each state sets the interest rate limits by legislation and the state AG enforces. MA generally has low rates (respectively) and IL has substantial rates (personally have seen rates in the low-mid 30’s even during the dotcom era booming economy).
If the CFPB tries to regulate the details the lenders will simply issue a new agreement that eliminates the regulation. If people want the convenience of the card they will agree instead of returning to cash.
Too much reliance on credit cards on so many levels that any disturbance would cause ripples throughout the economy. Because of this there is no incentive for substantial changes.
Posted on 9/19/24 at 9:38 am to Azkiger
quote:
So why not use that same legality to ease the tax burdens of some Americans?
I don't believe in leftism.
I believe in equality.
Popular
Back to top


0









